Front yard broad day, Huntington goes hard in the paint with controversial Flock public surveillance system

Members of the Huntington City Council chased the moon to bed last week after moving forward with a vote regarding the Police Department’s acquisition of a highly controversial $2.1 million public surveillance system. In the days following their marathon all-night meeting, the council’s decision to move ahead with installation of the system has sparked statewide debate and criticism of similar systems, some of which are already in use.

Atlanta, Georgia-based Flock Group Inc., more commonly known as “Flock Safety” or “Flock Surveillance Systems” – a company that most recently made headlines for losing their contract with the nation’s third-largest police department in Los Angeles, California – is at the center of the controversy, as Huntington residents have made clear their disapproval over the city’s plan to implement the system. 

“Last year, I had an incredible opportunity to meet with mayors from all over the country,” Huntington Mayor Patrick Farrell said, while addressing council members at last week’s meeting. “While I was there, I intentionally sought out the ones that were effectively [and] meaningfully reducing crime in their cities.”

“These are cities like San Francisco, San Jose, Oakland, Las Vegas,” Farrell continued. “These are very big cities – they are very, I’ll say, ‘blue’ (Democrat controlled) cities – these are people that very much care about civil liberties, and very much care about equity in everything they do.” 

Farrell, a Republican, noted that the mayors of these “blue cities” provided “real stats” as evidence of their success with crime reduction. However, Farrell did not specify what these “real stats” consisted of. 

“I said, ‘How are you doing this, and what are you doing?’” Farrell recalled. “They all said Flock Safety, every one of those cities.”  

The Flock Surveillance system, which consists largely of automatic license plate readers (ALPRs), allows for the sharing of information by all users across their network. The technology used in ALPRs, which was originally developed by the U.S. Department of Homeland Security in the early 2000s, has been widely used by law enforcement for more than two decades. And while these ALPRs are now utilized in police cruisers with more frequency than most light bars on top, it is the way in which Flock markets its product – as well as the documented falsehoods it has told about its capabilities – that has led to critics sounding the constitutional-alarm. 

“Technology can induce a lot of fear, [and] for good reason,” Farrell said. “When it comes to invasion of privacy, nobody wants to live in a surveillance state – least of all me. Nobody wants to be tracked.” 

According to a July 2 release from the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU), the City of Oshkosh, Wisconsin cancelled their contract with Flock Safety this past April, just one day after entering into an agreement with the company. The stated reason for the cancellation was that a Flock representative had intentionally lied to members of the Oshkosh City Council while explaining the system’s true capabilities. 

When asked if Flock’s network created heat maps that could track the location of specific vehicles over a period of time – as reported by the Milwaukee Journal-Sentinel – Flock’s Chief Information Officer Chris Castaldo said no. Doubling down on his protestations of the company’s commitment to privacy, Castaldo also claimed that no federal agency would have access to the data collected by Oshkosh’s cameras without the foreknowledge of the city’s police department. Within 24 hours, both statements were confirmed to be false, leading to the City of Oshkosh’s immediate cancellation of the contract. 

Oshkosh is not alone. On February 19, NPR reported that at least 30 municipalities had discontinued use of Flock’s cameras since December of last year. At present, that number has risen to more than 80 municipalities across 28 states. And while this currently represents only a small percentage of the more than 5,000 Flock Safety users nationwide, a common trend has been reported throughout most cancellations: residential data was being shared with federal agencies – specifically the U. S. Border Patrol – with neither the knowledge or consent of the contracted community.

“Everyone gets scared about how something might be used, or how it might infringe on your privacy, I get that,” Farrell noted. “But when something happens in your neighborhood – when it’s somebody that you know – you’ll turn over the entire city to make sure somebody gets brought to justice.” 

In addition to ALPRs, the Flock system makes use of drone technology for first response scenarios. Flock themselves have stated that their drones are advanced enough to distinguish between fireworks and gun fire. 

“This isn’t a choice between supporting police and protecting privacy,” Farrell added. “We don’t have to choose between being safe and protecting our freedoms. Safety and liberty – civil liberties – can coexist.”

Huntington is not the first community in West Virginia to contract with Flock Safety, only the most recent. In December 2025, West Virginia Public Broadcasting reported on the backlash faced by the Monongalia County Commission over their decision to utilize Flock cameras. And while Putnam County contracted with Flock in June of last year, implementation has reportedly been paused due to privacy concerns. 

Read commentary from West Virginia Watch’s Leann Ray to learn some of the private businesses in West Virginia currently using Flock cameras. 

Although numerous courts throughout the United States have individually ruled that the use of ALPRs by law enforcement on public roadways does not constitute a violation of the Fourth Amendment – the article in the Bill of Rights which prevents the government from conducting unreasonable searches and seizures – legalities surrounding the access to and use of data collected by Flock’s system is considerably less defined. This ambiguity has resulted in lawsuits filed by the ACLU, as well as numerous other organizations and individual citizens. Notably, at least one Huntington resident has already filed suit against the City over their contract with Flock.

Although Farrell, as well as four of the six council members who voted in favor of contracting with Flock are Republican, the use of surveillance equipment is not universally supported by either of the state’s major political parties. However, while Democrats Mary Anderson and Mike Shockley did join with Republicans Jason Arthur, Linda Blough, Bob Archer, and Todd Sweeney by voting in favor of contracting with Flock, no Republicans voted against. No-votes were cast by Democrats Holly Smith-Mount, Tia Rumbaugh, Sarah Walling, and Teresa Johnson. Republican Stacey Jo Holley was absent from voting. 

Immediately following Huntington City Council’s decision, the West Virginia Freedom Caucus – a group of six of the state’s more conservative Republican legislators – called for the immediate removal of Flock cameras from all West Virginia communities where they are currently installed. 

“No state or local government should be mass tracking the daily movements of law-abiding citizens without a warrant,” Del. Chris Anders, R-Berkeley, chair of the Freedom Caucus, said in a July 14 press release. “Mass surveillance has no place in a free society.”

More than 50 Huntngton residents spoke against the use of Flock surveillance equipment at last week’s city council meeting, and protestors have been active outside City Hall every day since the contract was approved. As of now, however, plans remain in place for Huntington to move forward with implementation. 

BBG will provide updates regarding this developing situation as additional information becomes available.